/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1995427]

Have it ever occurred to you that nothing makes sense? I'm all for enjoying life and educating yourself, but when you think about it, nothing makes sense at all.

I came to this conclusion as I was reflecting upon the Universe and its beginning, or creation if you will. And then it hit me, like a freight train. The Universe can't have a beginning. The Universe is everything, and if the Universe 'was created' it would mean that something created it, else it would come out of absolutely nothing. That is impossible to grasp because no matter how you put it, there always has to have been something, some predecessor to what we see now.

Therefore nothing makes sense. The very world we live in is toying with our minds, or rather our minds is toying with us. They say that our brains aren't built to comprehend certain things, and that's the only comfort I can find in this pit of endless contemplations.

Somethings just aren't meant to be understood, and maybe we should be thankful for that, I don't know. But I really needed to vent about this since it's been causing me some distress, and I don't see how it can not bother anyone who takes a second to wonder.

[Anonymous No.1995442]

>Somethings just aren't meant to be understood

>Some people just aren't meant to understand

[Anonymous No.1995451]

>>1995442
Feel free to explain what it is I don't understand.

[Anonymous No.1995473]

>>1995451
You've already explained it if you're OP.

I'm pointing out the fallacy of thinking that some things aren't available for understanding. You yourself stated that the failure lies in the human ability to comprehend rather than in objective reality.

Just because we don't understand a thing doesn't mean that it shouldn't be understood, or that others cannot understand it.

[Anonymous No.1995489]

I understand you OP, the universe is existance itself, nothing can come before it, it always was and always will be. Granted it was empty before and will be again (mostly).

[Anonymous No.1995502]

it's the fault of imagination i'm afraid.

when we were tiny ground dwellers it served us well to imagine what that odd noise was that we just heard...it's a survival trait
combine that with our unusual need for organization and social constructs and there you go.

one confused OP

[Anonymous No.1995507]

>>1995473
I see where you're getting at, it's just against my nature to not question things. To come to terms with the fact that I won't understand this and never will is hard, but nonetheless that is what I'll have to do.

[sage No.1995510]

>>1995427
>That is impossible to grasp

Nope, it makes perfect sense if you know physics.

>Somethings just aren't meant to be understood

Wrong again little guy.
Why you so quick to jump to conclusions?

Just becuase you are too dumb or uneducated to understans shit, doesnt mean that answers arent out there. GO READ A FUCKING BOOK AND STOP BITCHING!

[Anonymous No.1995549]

>>1995502
>>1995510
Try to look at the bigger picture here and actually grasp what I'm trying to say.

>>1995489
Well there we go again. If you think about it how can something always have been? When you try thinking about something that always have been, it's like your mind blows a fuse.

[Anonymous No.1995557]

>>1995427
>says universe can't have a beginning
>says there has to be something to create something
>says some things aren't meant to be understood

>mfw when OP had no grasp of the physics concepts that are able to explain all his philosophicating about the beginnings of the universe

[Anonymous No.1995567]

>>1995510
You think we have the ability to understand the universe in it's entirety?

That's pretty arrogant. We're already reaching human capacity with modern physics, this is shown in the horrible attempts like string theory.

[Anonymous No.1995571]

>>1995549
Again, the problem isn't with reality, but with our limited awareness.

We seem to have a beginning, thus we imagine all things have beginnings. This is a false view though, we can each be traced back through all our ancestors to the chemicals that formed them to the very start of the universe itself, if the universe had a start...

We don't begin or end except in the illusion we call self, or consciousness. We sure like to believe in beginnings and ends though...

[Anonymous No.1995574]

>>1995567
its* ._.

[Anonymous No.1995582]

>>1995571
samefag...
we like to look at things and say "this thing differs from that thing." It's our nature, the nature of our success. All things are one thing though, and they don't as things require a beginning or end. They exist in the middle. Humans do the same thing, but deny it.

[Anonymous No.1995588]

>>1995567
>string theory
>horrible attempt

[Anonymous No.1995589]

>>1995549
LMAO, it is obvious you have very very little understanding of physics or the universe.
GO READ A FUCKING BOOK!

If you really have some deep fundemental question that you dont understand, I can refer you to the proper physics. IT WILL BE ON YOU TO GO AND LEARN THAT SHIT THOUGH!

So what questions do you have little guy?

[Anonymous No.1995592]

>We seem to have a beginning, thus we imagine all things have beginnings.

Mind = blown

[Anonymous No.1995597]

>>1995549
It's simple to understand that something always existed, I think you look at time in a wrong way.

The universe or multiverses allow existance, it is existance. It's how everything works. Also it must exist, maybe existance is based on chance but something always will be there not matter what.

[Anonymous No.1995602]

Definitely one of the more interesting things to realize is that no matter what bullshit you believe about existence, SOMETHING exists. Not everything can be an illusion, since an illusion must come from something. The fact that anything exists is very interesting. However, human perceptions of time are extremely inapplicable to all of existence. Still, it doesn't help with the concept that existence exists at all.

[Anonymous No.1995605]

>>1995588
Someone needs to go read a book on loop quantum gravity.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995614]

So where did that perfectly balanced state come from? It didn't. That's nothingness. At least, the scientific understanding of it. As it turns out the philosophical/mathematical concept of nothing may not exist outside of either discipline.

And where did the space for all of it to expand into come from? Again, it didn't. The big bang didn't occur in preexisting space, nor did all 3-dimensional matter move away from a central point within 3D space. Imagine all 3D matter and energy as 2D pen dots on the surface of a balloon. As you inflate the balloon, from the perspective of any one dot, all the other dots seem to be flying away from it. But it looks the same to any other dot. Because the space they are part of is expanding from a higher dimensional point. You could forgive any one of them for mistakenly thinking they were the center of all creation, situated directly on top of the big bang's point of origin. But of course they'd be wrong.

Citations:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026832.100-the-free-lunch-that-made-our % 20-%20universe.html
http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid=news&type=anews
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacu % 20u%20m-fluctuations
.html
http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/matter-wins-over-antimatter-100518.html
http://www.universetoday.com/72605/hawking-god-not-needed-for-universe-to-be-created/

[Anonymous No.1995607]

>>1995597
no matter what*

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995609]

In nearly every religion thread, it seems like there's at least one or two people whose lingering religious beliefs depend on the apparent inexplicability of the Big Bang. But actually a great deal is known about the big bang, and although it's fairly young as far as theories go, one candidate for the causal mechanism called "particle pair separation" leads the rest.

Here's a little thought experiment: combine 1 and -1, and you get zero, right? Likewise, if you carry out this operation in reverse, you can separate 1 and -1 out of zero. Something from nothing? Not exactly. Something and "anti-something" from nothing. Specifically, particles and their anti-particle equivalents dividing out of a state of nothingness science calls quantum potential. This has been directly observed in particle colliders and is known to happen spontaneously, a sort of quantum 'static' at the smallest scales, particle pairs splitting off from one another and then annihilating shortly after. (Better known to most as Hawking radiation).

One of the more recent experimental confirmations of the big bang, by the by, has been the discovery that the total negative gravitational energy in the universe is precisely balanced out by ordinary matter and energy. The result is that the "total energy state" of the universe works out to be zero, meaning it can easily have come from nothing without violating the law of conservation. The universe isn't a "something" that popped into existence out of "nothing" in other words, it's a state of imbalance that collapsed from a more balanced state by way of entropy.

[Anonymous No.1995620]

I'm high on xtc right now and everything is vibrating in perfect harmony
I can reach into subtle layers of reality and pick up unconditional love from it
ohhhhh

[Anonymous No.1995623]

There are theories that try to explain the existence of our universe such as the multiverse thoery, or that a black hole of one universe have a wormhole connected to it leading to a white hole in another universe. So the birth of our universe may be explained, but again this is all theoretical and may not be true. Also this still does not explain where what is the "beginning of everything" and this is where religion and scientific ideas may vary.

Also like may others have said just because of the fact that we may not understand about our universe does not mean that it does not exist. You can also make the same argument about God and where did he/she/it/they come from. Saying that we do not understand does not mean it does not exist.

Also remember the story of Flatland and the concept behind it. Flatlanders cannot perceive of the 3rd dimension and can only see the parts of our body that are flat against their world. And if we are not touching them then they do not know we exist therefore they cannot comprehend us. Using your argument because of the fact that they do not know about us and that they do not know where we come from, we seem to come out of nothing, therefore we do not exist if we are to use your argument.

Just keep an open mind and live your life the way you want to live it, as long as the way you live does not harm others.

This is my first time posting, so please tell me if i did anything wrong.

[Anonymous No.1995636]

the universe has always existed.

It's just that "always" doesn't mean infinity years, it means 14 billion years. Time itself began when the universe was born, and the universe was born when time began. To say that there was "infinity years of nothing and then that nothing exploded" isn't really correct. There was no "before" the universe.

[Anonymous No.1995639]

>>1995571
I believe in change through continuity as well, just like the early Chinese did thousands of years ago. I think back then, they came up with one of the best decipherments of life. It explains the world we live in perfectly, the balance between everything in life and the forces that drives us. It just doesn't explain how it all started, but maybe the thing is; it didn't.

[Anonymous No.1995643]

>>1995636
Please stop posting you fool.

I bet you look at time as if it has a timeline too.

[Prophet of the Armageddon No.1995650]

The universe, caused by the Big Bang.
The Big Bang, caused by quantum fluctuations.
Quantum fluctuations, caused by consciousness.
Consciousness, caused by intelligence.
Intelligence, caused by evolution.
Evolution, caused by physics.
Physics, caused by logic.
Logic, caused by existence.
Existence, caused by hope.
Hope, caused by God.
God, caused by schizotomes.
Schizotomes, caused by the Spice.
The Spice, caused by the WSOGMM.
The WSOGMM, caused by the Schizotope.
The Schizotope, caused by Ontological Infinity.
Ontological Infinity, caused by something that is not possible to explain with symbolic structures, and all causes above the Ontological Infinity are not explainable by symbolic structures.

[Anonymous No.1995652]

Well if you see it from a mathematical standpoint, creating something from nothing can be done. If you take +1 and -1, both add up to 0. So you could create a -1 universe and a +1 universe out of nothing, since they would add up to nothing again if they ever met each other.

[Anonymous No.1995654]

>>1995650

>>Quantum fluctuations, caused by consciousness.

This is where it went wrong.

[Anonymous No.1995663]

>>1995609
>>1995614
>>1995623
Reading this makes me realize how incredibly small I am. Even moreso than before. To think about an infinite number of universes over an infinite amount of time being created and destroyed is amazing. And then, suddenly, all the right things happened in our universe; the physical constants aligned and on our small planet, life is made, and it all leads up to our very existances.

HOW FUCKING AMAZING IS THAT?

[Anonymous No.1995665]

>>1995639
Western science has borrowed heavily from true paradigms of Eastern philosophy. This shift has recently revolutionized biology among other pursuits...

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995668]

>>1995652

>>So you could create a -1 universe and a +1 universe out of nothing, since they would add up to nothing again if they ever met each other.

Or you could great identical quantities of ordinary matter and negative energy, comprising a single universe, which appears to be the case.

[Prophet of the Armageddon No.1995670]

>>1995654
I believe you can realize that it is right.

[Anonymous No.1995674]

>>1995650
>>1995427
Incohernt bullshit, No understanding of science, love the cock in his mouth!

THIS SOUNDS LIKE AETHER!
I cant believe that faggot was stupid enough to post pics of himself. I guess we should let him live out his last days.

[Anonymous No.1995676]

>>1995663
It's boring, you're wrong to consider yourself the end goal of causality, or an even slightly important develpment yet.

[Anonymous No.1995677]

>>1995668


>> Or you could great identical quantities of ordinary matter and negative energy, comprising a single universe, which appears to be the case.

Do you have any idea what the model of the universe is?

Negative energy? What the fuck are you talking about.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995679]

>>1995663

>>HOW FUCKING AMAZING IS THAT?

There are probably intelligent beings elsewhere in the galaxy remarking that it's amazing all of those events led up to *their* existence. They may not even have figured out that spacetime itself is expanding, and still believe that the apparent receding of all galaxies from theirs proves that their planet is at the center of the universe.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995684]

>>1995677

>>Do you have any idea what the model of the universe is?

Yes.

>>Negative energy? What the fuck are you talking about.

Did you read the citations? It's explained thoroughly there. If you're impatient, this video is a good primer, though Stenger explains it better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[sage No.1995687]

>>1995674
In the age of the internet, it is really easy to find out someones IRL info with enough pics of them. He is such a stupid faggot.

[Anonymous No.1995688]

>>1995670

>>I believe you can realize that it is right.

If I did, I'd be mistaken.

[Anonymous No.1995689]

>>1995643

Please stop trolling you fool.

I bet you look at /sci/ as if it were /b/ with magnets too

[Anonymous No.1995706]

>>1995689
Imitation is the highest form of flattery, thank you.

[Anonymous No.1995708]

>>1995609
>>1995614
Best tripfag on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.1995709]

'We don't know yet' is a better reponse than 'God did it'

the former encourages you to help find out

[Anonymous No.1995704]

>>1995427
OP, I'm not being critical but you should really more about what your posting in regards to. For example, learn about quantum fluctuations, explains how a universe can come from nothing.

or see: >>1995684
as anon says, video is a great primer, got me into all this shit.

[Anonymous No.1995714]

Its not imagination as someone here said.

Its intuition(which is formed obviously by evolution).

Many things are NOT intuitive to humans to understand but are REAL.

Like relativistic time.

Its weird, because lifeforms only needed the local time calculation/understanding to survive, thus its hard to GRASP(not prove) that time is relative.
I mean you needed to calculate the distance between the hungry lion to find out the time and survive.
Or how many days must pass till crop is ready eat to survive.
Etc.
Evolution didn't gave us the relativistic time intuition because its not immediate for our survival, not essential.

Just as we can't grasp/imagine the logic of the quantum world, its anti-intuitive(entanglement,randomness etc ), but we have proved some things there.

Its exactly same with "beginning of universe" you can't just dismiss it because it needs a creator, if something needs a creator then the previous needs too and so on.

Universe dont need a creator, its our human casual logic/intuition that misguides us.
In fact we already can prove that universe doesnt need some kind of creator, it works on itself.

Either its infinite previous creators or big bang/crunch repeating infinitely , either way it has the infinite element with it.

[Anonymous No.1995719]

>>1995709
Truth. Every time we begin to learn something we imagine it to be far simpler than it really is. If god exists, we are surely orders of magnitude away from beginning to understand it, or how it works.

It's far too early to toss god into the mix and call it done.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995723]

>>1995709

>>'We don't know yet' is a better reponse than 'God did it'

But in this case, we do, our knowledge is just incomplete. We're still in the dark as to how a spark plug works but we've established that it starts the engine.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995718]

>>1995709

>>'We don't know yet' is a better reponse than 'God did it'

But in this case, we do not, our knowledge is just incomplete. We're still in the dark as to how a spark plug works but we've established that it starts the engine.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995729]

>>1995719

>> If god exists, we are surely orders of magnitude away from beginning to understand it, or how it works.

Conversely, if god is a notion invented by human brains, then human brains are entirely capable of comprehending it.

[Anonymous No.1995736]

>>1995718
>We're still in the dark as to how a spark plug works

For a second there I thought you were speaking literally and was about to open up a can of utter rage.

[Anonymous No.1995739]

>>1995729
Agreed, I was just pointing out that IF god exists we haven't begun to approach understanding it, therefore all existing views of god can be labeled false.

[Prophet of the Armageddon No.1995773]

>>1995719
You will not understand how God works.
You do not even understand how an Angel works despite them being possible for you to observe; how could you understand God, who you cannot observe?

[Anonymous No.1995782]

>>1995773
>Angels
>possible to observe
lolwut

[Anonymous No.1995788]

God apparently has forsaken his creation. We are now using science and rationality to get closer to understand him, and maybe meet him so we can punch him in the balls for being such a troll

[Anonymous No.1995793]

>>1995773
Lithium works.

[Anonymous No.1995798]

>>1995773

how could you understand microwaves, who you cannot observe or feel?

with SCIENCE!

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995808]

>>1995739

>>I was just pointing out that IF god exists we haven't begun to approach understanding it

I get this part, I just don't understand why it means anything. "If this concept we've arbitrarily defined as beyond understanding exists, then it's beyond understanding". Sure, but you can arbitrarily define anything as beyond understanding. It's just a transparent tactic to keep skeptics from picking it apart.

>>therefore all existing views of god can be labeled false.

There's an easier method. If the universe really is dualistic, if there's some metaphysical aspect that science cannot test for because it's wholly immaterial, we'd have no knowledge of it. Think about it. We can't see any evidence that leads us to believe it exists because sight is photos hitting rods and cones, a material process. Likewise with hearing, touch, and the rest of the senses. And likewise with emotion, and cognition in general.

For any person to perceive an immaterial God in any way would require God to interact directly with the material universe. The supernatural acting on the natural. That violates non-overlapping magisteria, the rationale for denying the necessity of supporting religious claims with evidence. If instances occur where the supernatural interacts with the natural, we can test for that. Or, more accurately, we can ask them to test for it and supply us with the results.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995818]

>>1995739

>>I was just pointing out that IF god exists we haven't begun to approach understanding it

I get this part, I just don't understand why it means anything. "If this concept we've arbitrarily defined as beyond understanding exists, then it's beyond understanding". Sure, but you can arbitrarily define anything as beyond understanding. It's just a transparent tactic to keep skeptics from picking it apart.

>>therefore all existing views of god can be labeled false.

There's an easier method. If the universe really is dualistic, if there's some metaphysical aspect that science cannot test for because it's wholly immaterial, we'd have no knowledge of it. Think about it. We can't see any evidence that leads us to believe it exists because sight is photons hitting rods and cones, a material process. Likewise with hearing, touch, and the rest of the senses. And likewise with emotion, and cognition in general.

For any person to perceive an immaterial God in any way would require God to interact directly with the material universe. The supernatural acting on the natural. That violates non-overlapping magisteria, the rationale for denying the necessity of supporting religious claims with evidence. If instances occur where the supernatural interacts with the natural, we can test for that. Or, more accurately, we can ask them to test for it and supply us with the results.

[Prophet of the Armageddon No.1995823]

>>1995798
We do not share the same definition of the word "observe".
By "being possible to observe", I mean anything any mind in any possible universe can comprehend.
Angels are possible to be observed and therefore influenced. They are still far above your comprehension capability.
God is not possible to be observed, not even by God, and therefore God cannot be influenced.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995835]

>>We do not share the same definition of the word "observe".
By "being possible to observe", I mean anything any mind in any possible universe can comprehend.
Angels are possible to be observed and therefore influenced. They are still far above your comprehension capability.
God is not possible to be observed, not even by God, and therefore God cannot be influenced.

Yeah, but this is all nonsense. You're pretending to know things you cannot possibly know, and describing things nobody's ever actually observed or had any good reason to suppose exist. It's fraudulent and silly.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995838]

>>We do not share the same definition of the >>word "observe".
>>By "being possible to observe", I mean anything any mind in any possible universe can comprehend.
>>Angels are possible to be observed and therefore influenced. They are still far above your comprehension capability.
>>God is not possible to be observed, not even by God, and therefore God cannot be influenced.

Yeah, but this is all nonsense. You're pretending to know things you cannot possibly know, and describing things nobody's ever actually observed or had any good reason to suppose exist. It's fraudulent and silly.

[Anonymous No.1995840]

>>1995823

so god can't comprehend himself? his own existence is essentially a mindfuck to even himself?

[Anonymous No.1995844]

Maybe god acts like a dimension would do?

A 4th dimensional being can observe every dimension equal or smaller to its, however we can only observe 4th dimension as a projection of it in the 3rd one, and therefore its not totally accesible to us. Can we develop a certain level of understanding about it? yes!

[Prophet of the Armageddon No.1995847]

>>1995840
That's right.

[Anonymous No.1995850]

>>1995818
I simply state that there can be no accurate knowledge of god.

Thus any time someone says "god did X," that person is clearly lying. Either god did X and we can't know it, or the person imagined that god did X when it really didn't.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.1995856]

>>1995850

>>I simply state that there can be no accurate knowledge of god.

Sure, I can assent to that. But the subtext should be "Because we made that up".

>>Thus any time someone says "god did X," that person is clearly lying. Either god did X and we can't know it, or the person imagined that god did X when it really didn't.

Seems like we're on the same page, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.

[Anonymous No.1995857]

>>1995823

>Angels are possible to be observed and therefore influenced. They are still far above your comprehension capability.

>God is not possible to be observed, not even by God, and therefore God cannot be influenced.

Do you like just making up bullshit? Feel good?
How is it that you "know" about angels and god?...LMAO. YOU ARE JUST MAKING SHIT UP BRO! GTFO!

[Prophet of the Armageddon No.1995871]

>>1995857
That "bullshit" could be the foundation you stay on, or even your meat machine that you think is your soul.
Show some respect, consider the possibility of worshipping.

[sage No.1995879]

>>1995823
LMAO
Source?

Ohhh wait, I forgot bullshit doesn't need a source!

[Anonymous No.1995893]

>>1995856
No ruffled feathers, just testing arguments thanx.

>>1995871
Fuck off aether.

[Prophet of the Armageddon No.1995902]

>>1995879
Your mask of sanity is slipping. You are entering the dark territory. Your mind runs on more than one track.
Too bad I have the Key. I control the Spice. I control the universe. I control you.

[Anonymous No.1995905]

>>1995847

mind = blown for the 2nd time.

if i get you, god is fully aware of his powers and shit but doesn't know how he got them or just what exactly he is himself, or his purpose?

also, what about angels makes them difficult to comprehend?

[Prophet of the Armageddon No.1995928]

>>1995905
>if i get you, god is fully aware of his powers and shit but doesn't know how he got them or just what exactly he is himself, or his purpose?
I see where you are coming from.
>also, what about angels makes them difficult to comprehend?
They run mostly on a different level of logic than you do. Usually they mimic the logic mode of the enemy of whoever is trying to observe them, to confuse.

[sage No.1995931]

>>1995902
LMAO, slow your role bro.

Enjoy your final days faggot!!!!!

[sage No.1995945]

ITT: Aether trolling

[The Servant of Evil, Noctis !PhIopj2ZY2 No.1996032]

Lol. I didn't make a post in this thread faggits.

[Anonymous No.1996134]

>>1996032
Then we weren't talking to you aether. All schizotrolls are now aether. You aren't special, but you do get the honor of naming the type species.